Slashdot Mirror
Why Does the US Have a Civil Space Program?
BDew writes "The Presidents of the National Academy of Science and the National Academy of Engineering have commissioned a study on the Rationale and Goals of the US Civil Space Program. In short, the Academies are asking why the nation has a civil space program (including human, robotic, commercial, and personal spaceflight). The study is intended to provide a strategic framework for the nation's activities in space that can provide consistent guidance in an increasingly interconnected world. The members of the study committee are interested in the views (positive or negative) of the general public, particularly those people with a scientific and/or technological interest."
And fund our research instead.
This is my sig.
That's why I'm very leery of scaling back NASA. The moon shot was propaganda, partially, but it also unleashed a ton of new technologies and trained a generation of engineers. Of course, we could go along with the privatizing globalists, but you see how well that's working?
We may or may not find a role for men in space this generation, but space travel and investigation is absolutely fundamental for our survival as a species. And no corporation will EVER do what needs to be done, because it's not profitable except indirectly.
I don't believe they are asking this because they want to kill it. I think it's because they want to provide it with a more defined purpose. Some clarity and consistency in spending.
http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
Because it's polite.
An uncivil space wouldn't get much in the way of positive press.
And fund our research instead.
That would have been my first guess, given that there's a very vocal cadre who look for every opportunity to quash manned spaceflight, but TFA doesn't seem slanted in that direction. Could just be lip service, but I'm hoping it is what it says it is: A study to re-examine what we want to do, cross-index that with what we think we can do, and use that to create some concrete plans.
Then again, if the Obama administration turns NASA into the US Space Force, civil space pursuits at the national level may dry up entirely, leaving only military and private space efforts. Not sure I like the sound of that.
Because we can.
That should be more than enough reason. We as a species have proven ourselves significant. We are the only know organism that has ever had the ability to leave the immediate confines of this planet. If we stop now then this monumental acheviement was not more than a cheap stunt.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
It seems that private companies such as SpaceX are going to be the future rather then government funded such as NASA which has become counter productive the older it has gotten.
I largely agree with the sentiment, but only as it regards focus. NASA has become counter-productive because it's doing the same thing now it was doing forty years ago, which never quite motivates people to be inventive or innovative - just structured and regulatory. NASA should be almost exclusively focused on things like deep space exploration, manned interplanetary travel, etc., which don't have an immediate commercial benefit. If we wait on a commercial reason for manned interplanetary travel (read: 4. Profit!!!), we'll probably never get out there (unless "out there" finds us first...). Like any other industry, let the private companies and universities handle all the near-Earth and aeronautical stuff since they can and will find a way to make a profit (and some already have) without the waste of government bureaucracy and Congressional oversight.
The reason for a civil space program is pragmatic. The military and government is concerned with goals that are separate and distinct from civilian interests. But what are those interests?
The military is concerned with control, management, and protection of national assets. Communications, surveillance, and counter-terrorism are primary goals. Towards this end, the military produces missiles and delivery systems capable of providing this. But the military has no need to explore space, or advance scientific research beyond this.
There is no military or security reason to put someone on the moon, or map out the surface of other celestial bodies. However our understanding of these can advance civilian interest. For example, the helium-3 surface deposits on the moon could provide a energy source far greater than that of fission or conventional power generation. Exploration of the martian environment could provide clues to the formation of our own planet and answer a question long-sought after by both scientists, philosophers, and theologians -- where do we come from? How did we become what we are today? By deploying powerful sensing technology into space we can peer deeper into the universe and unlock many secrets, providing advances in physics, metallurgy, and many other fields. Putting people into space allows for research in microgravity and zero gravity environments. Certain molecular structures only form in the absence of a strong gravitational field. It could provide for advances in building materials, or allow for the development of quantum devices that may not be possible to produce terrestrially (or be prohibitively expensive) en masse. Frankly, there is considerable research that needs to be done.
Military and scientific needs can sometimes be at cross purposes. The creation of a fusion power generator with a net positive output would be a major advancement for any country. Further exploration of the moon may in fact provide this as there are isotopes found there that are very amiable to this goal, much more so than any terrestrial source. However, such a powerful energy source could be used to create star-wars styled weapons, making land-based particle accelerators a reality, or other advanced weapons systems that simply aren't practical to deploy today. Localized atmospheric heating, strong RF fields to provide an ionization layer above a target, etc., all become possible with a large energy source. Because of this, the military would likely move to be an obstacle in such research because it threatens the balance of power. Perhaps it already has.
The military and civilian programs should work in tandem when possible to reduce overall costs, but should also be allowed to initiate their own programs independently of each other, as the need arises. To collapse the two into a single entity gives rise to questions of trust, integrity, and overall effectiveness. Ultimately, it would not be as beneficial to society as the present system is, though in the short term it would offer some economic benefit -- but at the expense of long-term economic and social gain.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
The problem with 'scaling back' NASA is that it's not like a factory or a bunch of servers that you can just switch back on in 5 years with a bit of maintenance.
If you cut funding and they have to cut engineering jobs, you're going to lose talent: experience that may not return when you decide you're in another space race.
What is the real use of getting a man to Mars or another planet other thean bragging about it for the next 70 years? Somehow, some people are in favor of a manned space program. The question is, what is the tangible benifit of sending people to the moon/Mars/Jupiter/Proxima Centauri?
That's right up there next to the question "Why spend any money on space at all when we have so many problems that need solving right here on Earth?" I can't buy into either viewpoint. Manned spaceflight has its place, and I'll fight any effort to terminate it.
I feel that there is a lack of a concrete goal, something to stand behind.
Now this I can totally get behind. Goals are good, and a lack of them, or more accurately a continuous redefining of them, has crippled the US space program for decades.
Something that has a good probability of pay-off in the future. Is "finding out things about other planets" a goal that convinces people to support (manned or unmanned) spaceflight? What do we really want?
Sounds like your answers would be "No" and "Profit". The whole "pay-off" bit is a club that has been used to beat the space program repeatedly over the years. "What's in it for me? What's the return on my investment?" As with other forms of research and exploration, it's nearly always impossible to give firm answers to these questions. But experience has shown that the real answer usually is, "Far beyond expectations."
Ad astra per aspera!
That's a little brief, but the idea is correct. The government space program will always function and exist at the whim and will of those holding the purse-strings, and those trying to balance purely scientific pursuits with simply commercial projects.
The government is simply the wrong vehicle for this project. Look at what we've accomplished since putting men on the moon... Oh yeah, robotic explorers, no complaint, the knowledge alone was worth the trip, but the future of people getting off our little rock has been virtually forgotten.
We need to come up with cost effective means to put robotic construction equipment on the moon. Build LARGE human habitats safe from radiation, meteor impact, and most typical problems folks on the moon might encounter, and build a human colony capable of supporting million (ultimately billions of people.) With a significant presence on the moon, we now have the capacity to build large vessels, in a small gravity well, capable of taking a lot of people to other places in the Solar System. Lots of human habitats means less chance of the species getting taken out by a rogue comet, or local gamma ray burster.
In the short run, we need to make lots of space business, make a lot of wealth from space, and make the opportunity for average people to leave the confines of Earth's atmosphere as common as a jet flight. We need industry in space. We need to begin using all the goodies available to us in our little slice of the solar system.
I agree that I don't like space to be militarized. However, if it is, that would be good overall for manned space flight. Nobody can get funding like the armed forces can, and they tend to push the envelope on things that normally wouldn't get looked at twice. Big waste of money? Yes. Possibly the best thing to promote manned space flight that could happen? Absolutely.
I worked at the National Academies for a year, and I've never seen such a disorganized, confused, and visionless organization in my life. There were no less than 5 IT departments managing their web site(s), none of which was answerable to the others, and no CIO or central IT management. We had a database driven web site with a crumbling database and I spent most of my year telling them it was critical we fix it before it died, they decided to put the effort into CSS and graphics instead. More relevant here... I had an executive director tell me, and I quote, "Our reports don't matter, what matters is that we have them." The Academies are in theory one organization, but in reality it's 4 divisions that operate like warring principalities, and what little theoretical high level unifying management there is mostly seems to be disinterested. Each of these principalities is run by an executive director, so one of them saying "we exist only to exist" is incredibly sad. The Academies were apparently once a prestigious academic institution, but it seems now they're just a floundering Beltway Bandit - except they aren't trying to make any money even, it's a nonprofit.
Well, considering that Space is a vacuum, shouldn't that be: because it's not there!
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Why do you think that saving the species is a good idea?
Why do you think UP is the answer, when DOWN provides a much more affordable, immediate and suitable environment? (Subterranean living) Sure DIRT is boring. But its cheap!
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Space exploration, intended to lead to significant off-planet industry and settlement in the long term, is essential for the future progress of humanity as a whole. Exactly what the benifits will be isn't something that can be usefully predicted, but simply ignoring the resources of almost all of our solar system is clearly not a reasonable plan.
Currently only major governments have the resources to mount any sort of space exploration efforts. Since it's essential, and only major governments can do it, major governments must do it. That will remain true until it becomes viable for smaller organizations to take up the burden.
In order for government funded exploration to effectively lead towards future off-planet industry and settlement, the exploration effort must contribute towards lowering the price of and broadening access to space exploration technology. Meaningful off-planet industry and settlement won't occur at major-government-only price points, and it won't occur with major governments as the gatekeepers.
A military space program would be unlikely to meet these requirements. Technology would be kept secret rather than being shared, which would fail to contribute to advances by private sector entities and smaller governments. Flashy exploration spectacles would likely still occur - perhaps even more efficiently - but the main benefit to a government run space program would be lost.
A government funded space program's primary task should be to provide seed knowledge and technology for future private space exploration. It will have succeeded when there are multiple separately owned private sector moonbases, asteroid mines, orbital power stations, and long term research habitats. A military space program would subvert this goal through misallocation of resources and refusal to publicly disclose publicly funded developments.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
We may or may not find a role for men in space this generation, but space travel and investigation is absolutely fundamental for our survival as a species. And no corporation will EVER do what needs to be done, because it's not profitable except indirectly.
I can think of no better time to quote J. Michael Straczynski, using the voice of Commander Jeffrey Sinclair, talking about why humans go to space:
Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics, and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe, and Lao-Tzu, and Einstein, and Morobuto, and Buddy Holly, and Aristophanes, and - all of this - all of this - was for nothing. Unless we go to the stars.
I can't improve on that.
Why does the US have a civilian space program?
Because so many other nations do. Even India has a great space program. Why wouldn't the US?
Why does the US have a civilian space program?
Because militarization of space at this point in time is impractical and expensive, so international treaties require the separation of peaceful space exploration from military conquest in a transparent fashion.
Why does the US have a civilian space program?
Because space is the future of human kind. Earth was the cradle of humanity but one cannot stay in the cradle forever.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Agreed. Blue sky activities such as research on manned space travel are inherently not susceptible to pure private enterprise. That's why I laud groups like SpaceX and initiatives like the X-Prize, which break things down into manageable chunks for private enterprise to tackle, while still keeping around the government in areas that private industry is weak (distant goals with extremely large but speculative payoffs).
The reason I say it's inherently not susceptible to pure private enterprise is because there is an extremely high upfront (and continuing) investment cost, coupled with a stupendously large but very distant payoff. I haven't seen any evidence that there will be significant payoff in manned space travel before we get to the point where our technology is ready for colonization, but once we reach that point how do you even measure the "profits" they're so large?
In a purely rational marketplace, this may not make a difference, as 1 trillion over the next 10 years in return for 500 trillion in 50 is a great deal (with nothing or virtually nothing before 50). However, in the real world, no private actor would ever touch that deal with a ten foot pole. The problems are numerous, such as the fact that humans have finite lifespans, and 50 years is generally too long a time frame to wait for a payoff for an investment. A related problem is how you get together 1 trillion dollars to start with, especially since you've limited the pool to only those with extremely long investment windows. Corporations can help with this, since their immortality, like the government's, gives them a longer view on things, but the need to make short term (or even medium term) profits due to the finite lifespan of human investors means it's pretty much unrealistic to expect a corporation that doesn't plan on turning a profit for 50 years. Now, I just made up these numbers, but in general, I just don't see how private enterprise without purely altruistic goals can expect to gather humongous amount of money X in order to invest for long time frame Y in order to make stupendous amount of money Z.
Furthermore, in the case of space travel, the gains would be immeasurably large, but would be paid over a very large time frame as well. What good is it finally reaching a feasible method of inter planetary travel if within 21 years when your patents expire, or likely even sooner, all your competitors can cheaply leach off your initial massive outlay and develop cheap copies of your space travel methods, possibly even surpassing you (i.e. Rio mp3 players vs. Apple iPods). Even a rational immortal actor in a perfect world wouldn't invest in that case, unless they seek solely to benefit society and mankind as a whole, like ideally the government would.
Robert Browning had an answer, "Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?"
So did George Mallory: "Because it is there".
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
What is the real use of getting a man to Mars or another planet other thean bragging about it for the next 70 years? Somehow, some people are in favor of a manned space program. The question is, what is the tangible benifit of sending people to the moon/Mars/Jupiter/Proxima Centauri?
"Sending people to the moon" had a lot of prerequisites. These prerequisites include:
And many, many more (see http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at_home.html, http://spaceplace.jpl.nasa.gov/en/kids/spinoffs2.shtml, http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/5-8/features/F_Spinoffs_Extra.html etc.)
"Putting a man on mars" is simply an easy-to-define milestone. The real benefits are too long to lists.
Yes, but we can't breathe their. Also, their is no oxygen, water, food, nor farmland to grow anything, It would be hard to haul cows up to milk and/or eat. While the shuttle *might* have been able to haul cows up, the shuttle fleet will be retired shortly. They also need hay and water. You may say well, why don't we just send up an extra load of steaks, dried buttermilk and Tang? The problem with this is that you will run out again and can not replenish supplies without it costing ten billion USD a load. While I accept the fact the moon is made of cheese, it most likely is moldy and hence it's green tinge.
In the end, man should not go into space until the cows are ready to call space home.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
As lead mechanical engineer who designed, built, and tested a lunar mining machine within the last year, I can assure you: we're working on it.
Let me just indicate that if NASA (or some other government entity) had not funded the project, the private space sector would have taken decades to begin considering funding it.
The civil space industry provides funding and support for state-of-the-art space technologies, while the private space industry - with their ROI requirements - follows behind. There is nothing wrong with this protocol. If you'd like to see more private space industry, fund NASA so that companies can justify spending money on more mature technologies.
IWARS.
People, in general, disappoint me. Politicians even more so.
Why should Portugal fund your trip to find new trade routes to China? Even if such a route were to exist it would be much to expensive to travel that way. Good day Mr. Columbus.
The military seems to have zero interest in maned space flight due to 4 issues.
1) Why send a person when you can send a bomb?
2) It's hard to do stealthy reentry.
3) How do you get people home once they are there?
4) It cost way to much to send enough people do do something meaningful vs flying someone in from a near by base.
The Toynbee tiles are a warning to remind us of the perils of the militarization of space.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
That made me curious. NASA invented tang?!?
It turns out it's an urban legend.
From Wikipedia:
"It was initially intended as a breakfast drink, but sales were poor until NASA began using it on Gemini flights in 1965 (researched at Natick Soldier Systems Center), which was heavily advertised. Since that time, it has been associated with the U.S. manned spaceflight program, so much so that an urban legend emerged that Tang was invented for the space program"
I don't think that military space flight necessarily means militarized space-flight, myself.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
Such scientists would be poor representatives of Human Civilization and should reconsider their role in society. You see, at the core of Science ( from Latin "Scio"/"scire" -- "to know" ) lies the principle reason why Humans explore Nature : Our ingrained drive to map out the limits of our knowledge and push those limits back. As the late Arthur C. Clarke put it : "The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible." . If a society stagnates, and stops reaching beyond the possible -- stops exploring -- then searching History will show, time and time again, that such a society will inevitably collapse.
Given the above, and given the geological record's testament to the finite probability of life on this planet being periodically ( not completely ) destroyed, and given the new factor that Human Civilization may be responsible for its own destruction, one may logically deduce from the basic laws of probability that our chance of extinction is an ever increasing number, slowly but surely approaching 1, and that the following quote from the late Carl Sagan rings true, now more than ever : "All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct."
jdb2
What we really need is an alien race to show up, blow up a major city or two, leave us exact directions on how to get to their home planet and specs on what sort of weaponry they have, and then leave us alone for about 200 years. That's about the only way I can see the military getting into manned space travel in a big way.
That sounds like a fantastic idea for a book.
That reminds me of how some say there are three schools of thought in space advocacy, which can be summed up as follows:
http://theforvm.org/diary/bill-white/werner-von-braun-carl-sagan-gerard-oneill
Saganites: "Space is big, billions of stars, isn't God's creation incredible...DON'T TOUCH IT." [though in fairness to Sagan, in his later years he became more supportive of human spaceflight]
Von Braunians: "We vill go boldly into space, and you vill watch on television, and you vill enjoy it." That's the current space program.
O'Neillians: "We will build the tools, go into space, and use its resources to expand humanity and freedom into the cosmos." ...
In a paradigm Tumlinson dreamed up, the space world fractures into three groups: Saganites, O'Neillians and von Braunians.
Saganites, named for astronomer Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996), are the philosophers and voyeurs of the cosmos, intent on low-impact exploration that promotes a sense of wonder. They consider the universe an extension of Earth, and want space explorers to be politically correct pacifists and environmentalists.
O'Neillians take their name from Princeton physicist Gerard O'Neill (1927 - 1992), who imagined city-size colonies in space contained on vast, rotating platforms (think of the space station in 2001: A Space Odyssey, with its spinning rings and artificial gravity). Getting people out of here en masse was the thingâ"not to kiss Earth good-bye in the rearview mirror, but to give it a chance, by consuming extraterrestrial rather than terrestrial resources. (An O'Neillian motto, riding a bumper sticker of his day, read: âoeSave Earth: Develop Space.â)
Von Braunians are, strictly speaking, the old guard, named for the V-2 and Saturn rocket-meister Wernher von Braun (1912 - 1977). Von Braunians advocate a centralized approach: large expensive projects like the ones NASA undertakes, projects that ordinary people can be proud of but not participate in.
I'd add that there's also the Heinleinians, who want to use the power of private industry to bring about O'Neill's vision.
"defining what Bush's Vision for Space Exploration meant"
It meant: stop looking at Earth's environment.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The military seems to have zero interest in maned space flight due to 4 issues.
1) Why send a person when you can send a bomb?
2) It's hard to do stealthy reentry.
3) How do you get people home once they are there?
4) It cost way to much to send enough people do do something meaningful vs flying someone in from a near by base.
5) Aliens aren't known to have any oil
6) Haliburton doesn't supply freeze-dried ice cream
7) "Shock & Awe" doesn't have much effect in space since the explosions are dwarfed by supernovas
8) We can't generate a warp signature for the Vulcans to detect yet
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines
By that logic it's wrong to force people to fund any programs if they don't want them.
Yes including Welfare, Schools, victim support groups, anything.
It's called living in a representative democracy. You don't get a direct say in any of these things. I'd love to stop having my tax dollars stop funding LOTS of things. My option is to elect representatives that reflect my desires and hope they aren't corrupt (heh).
As long as pork barrel dollars are funding garbage I don't care about, I'm fine with them funding at least one thing I DO care about.
Or were you going to get people to fund Welfare and Education and Food Stamps voluntarily too?
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
When India says their going to map the minerals of moon, I think the time for excuses is over.
I think this conservative, who would ordinarily disagree with you on military spending, might have to honestly concede that the current US procurement and R&D program for defense is insane. We need to actually ask some hard questions about military procurement and this is a debate worth having.
Yes, we know there is a cost in wear and tear due to the wars but the USAF and USN are not flying that many missions. I would question the Army spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a "Future Combat" system built around smaller vehicles than the M-1 tank, when the M-1 tank is the only survivable assett we have in theater. I would question why the US Navy needs to have a brand new F-35, when, it just re-armed itself with F-18 Superhornets, and those are honestly almost a brand new aircraft. Speaking of carriers, how many carriers do we need to have in peacetime. Yeah, its nice that we have about 12 active duty super carriers, but do people know that the 20 or so assault carriers operated by the US Marines are actually about the same in capability as the carriers of other countries? And what's up with the sudden replacement of Seawolf with Virgina, and why can we only build one submarine a year? Why does it cost so much to operate 20 submarines when scarcely two decades ago we operated 100? Why does the US Navy have more money than ever, but less ships than it did when even Jimmy Carter "ruined the Navy"? Why is it before we needed 600 ships to adequately patrol the world's oceans, but now, we can't even spare a ship to go take out some pirates? I thought the reduction in size of ships was ok because the more expensive ships were more capable.
And don't even get me started on the USAF, except for this. why we are still building two classes of advanced fighters when the most glaring problem with the usaf is an inability to supply the army from the air. Hello...
We could go on all day.
This is my sig.
I'm a scientist working in an unrelated field but I'd still like to see manned space get more funding. If it starts doing something really interesting, I might even join. Why? To me space is the goal, not the means, but if you want a why: Either there is other intelligent life in the universe, or there is not. If there isn't it would seem a shame that nothing ever got to see 1-10^-20 of the universe. If there is intelligent life out there - well most examples from history show that when the guys on the ships meet the guys on the shore, you REALLY want to be the guys on the ships.
9) The Shadows are trying to keep the Vorlon Presidency finding their ships on Mars.
--The FNP